In which market is Nikon lagging? P&S.
What market is Nikon targetting with this new system? The P&S’ers.
DSLR users are not going to be excited about it, but at least we’ll have a suitable substitute when we don’t want any bulk.

kulturindustrie

If this would be a reasonable replacement for P&S Cameras and not exceeding their size, it still would be great.

The Canon s95, a p&s I’d consider quite reasonable now, has only a 1/1.7″ sensor. If the calculation above is right, it would double the s95’s sensor size, which again, hopefully, would improve the low light performance.

Mock Kenwell

I would love to see a DP2 killer from Nikon. I’d buy that.

Matt B

Incidentally, is this the “market surprise” that Nikon promised last year? I don’t think there was any follow up on that message from the president.

Matt B

The more I think about it the more I’m guessing this is the belated surprise. A compact P&S with interchangeable lenses. We’ve only seen the mount, the actual camera might look just like a coolpix. Also, I noticed a pro video camera had a f1.8 zoom lens, which I didn’t think was possible, but the videographer told me it is possible due to the small size of the sensor in comparison to DSLR’s. Any chance the new lenses will be wider than the expected f2.8? This is just blatant guessing, but this is the forum for that!

http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

in your chart is missing my IQ180 which is about twice bigger then Kodak sensor hahahahaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

ok, never mind.

http://bit.ly/9NIXQ Sir David Hasselblaff

This is not true. The IQ180 is only a fraction larger than the 39k.

http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

four halfs is also a fraction

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drscsi Dr SCSI

+ 1
Yawnnnnnn…….

Jason Brown

I do honestly think Nikon has missed an opportunity here. If they’d stuck an APS-C (DX) sensors in there, I’d be first in the queue to buy one but the small sensor and excessive crop factor is a real turn off…

SZRimaging

They probably don’t want it to compete with their DSLRs/current lenses. And if they are answering people’s cries for a smaller system, this is a better route. Or even for a bridge system.

To make it work, they will need a body/lens comboe cheaper than their entry level DSLR by a few hundred. Say $399 for the body with a 24-70mm f4 lens?

Better question, in body or in lens IS? Seems that even though in lens may work better, people buy the in body more for convenience. Not to mention this allows for smaller lenses.

SZRimaging

I should say 24-70mm equivalent, not actual length.

iamlucky13

But at DX-scale, while it would compete against DX bodies, it wouldn’t be competing against their established lenses. It would be another reason to use their established lenses – they would adapt usefully (lots of reasons I say “usefully”) to the mirrorless body.

While this is only my own opinion, I’d almost certainly spend $600 on a Nikon mirrorless with a 24-70 equivalent compact kit lens. It would be a great travel setup for me, and complement my existing gear.

However, like you said, Nikon seems much more interested in a bridge camera. Such an item might be worth $400-500 to me, or I might just compromise slightly further and get a Canon S95. Even if I did decide to go with a mirrorless, there’s no longer the inherent advantage to Nikon in attracting their current user base.

Global

Yes, but they can MAKE that Camera in the future with very little effort. You can say Nikon missed the opportunity for a D90 sized D700 if you want to. But that’s not what Nikon is working on. What Nikon is considering is the creation of a new Category of camera to expand the market widely, not to slosh existing customers to one side or another.

That is a very different deal.

Many, many people think that 4/3rds lenses are still too big (not truly portable/pocketable). So if Nikon can create a camera with a bigger sensor than most points&shoots + have much more compact interchangable lenses, then Nikon can have a winner for those who are put off by 4/3rd lens sizes.

Now, if they made a camera with just P&S size sensor or with a crappy sensor (in general), then they are going to have serious problems.

Note to Nikon: Keep it 10MP max and try to get as much dang low-light technology as you can to pump that thing + a series of pancake primes. I think they could have a winner if they do it right.

So the big question is — who is in charge of this project at Nikon? The P&S managers, or the DSLR managers?

http://www.dungbeetle.com.au/ Scurvyhesh

+1 to Global. The current mirrorless cameras are pigs for what they offer. I would buy a Rebel or 5100 over these things any day. I think this Nikon might actually be the compact people were looking but but didnt realize it. Especially if they carry over low light capabilities in its bigger brothers.

John

+2 Well put and exactly what I have been thinking. I will be in the market for one if they do it right. Much higher chance if the P&S Coolpix designers and managers are NOT involved.

LGO

Concur. A small compact camera means small compact lenses and this means a small sensor.

If Nikon gets the design and features set right and is successful in the market, the design for this small mirrorless camera can be scaled up for DX and FX-sized sensor.

iamlucky13

Well, yes, they can make the camera that most interests me in the future, but I have absolutely no expectation that they will do so, introducing a 3rd mount design in the process.

Beyond that, I recognize that not everyone has the same interests as I do, so if what Nikon appears poised to release is what more people want, then Nikon did the right thing by the greatest number of their customers.

LGO

Sony experience with having a different A-mount and E-mount has caused many problems but one of this is the lack of dedicated E-mount lenses. This is why Sony will be introducing an adapter that would allow NEX bodies to use A-mount lenses through an adapter.

Nikon knows better than to commit the same mistake. A 3rd mount is not necessarily the way to go. While there will be compromises, Nikon could simply design specialized and dedicated pancake primes to go with these mirrorless bodies while giving any prospective owner of these DX/FX sensor bodies the option to use F-mount lenses. It would be in Nikon’s continued interest to make its current F-mount lens compatible with any future DX or FX sensor-sized camera in the future.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drscsi Dr SCSI

@SZRimaging,
“Better question, in body or in lens IS? Seems that even though in lens may work better, people buy the in body more for convenience. Not to mention this allows for smaller lenses.”

Nikon claims the reason for IS (or VR) in the lens is due to the fact that there are two optical paths in your typical DSLR. One path is through the lens and to the sensor, where the other path goes up via the mirror and through the pentaprism where the contrast detection focusing occurs. Additionally, when looking through a pentaprism with VR in the lens, your viewing is stabalized. DSLRs which only implement IS at the sensor do not provide the focusing system or the user with a stable view. With the EVIL system, you remove that second optical path. The sensor is tied to the electronic view finder directly, so a stabalized sensor makes more sense than a stabalized lens, when costs and physical dimensions are considered. The only problem with IS (VR) in the lens of a EVIL system is the fact you pay for it again and again with each lens purchase. However, there may be situations where one IS (VR) methodology (in lens or at sensor) is more appropriate than the other. I am certain the ideal methodology becomes a geometric question regarding the distance between the stabalizing device (lens or sensor) and the nodal point. The further the stabalizing device is from the nodal point, the greater the horizontal and vertical movements need to be of the IS (VR) device, in order to stabalize the image. Most likely the best place to put IS (VR) is within the lens itself, as you can get the stabalizing optic much closer to the nodal point than you could with the sensor. The trade off for IS (VR) in lens is naturally the physical size and cost of paying for the same solution for every lens.

If Nikon is trying to create a new segment just above your point and shoot and just below Micro 4/3, then they will need to keep ensure that costs stay between those two segments. I would think that IS (VR) will be achieved at the sensor of the EVIL camera. Optionally, Nikon could create a hybrid system which includes IS (VR) in the optic as well as at the sensor. Your higher end (costlier) EVIL optics would have VR, where as your KIT lenses wouldn’t. By having a hybrid system, you would potentially have greater VR capabilities giving you up to 5 or 6 stops of improvement; combining this technology with very fast f/1.4 glass and a huge DoF for the smaller sensor may equate to shooting a 200mm telephoto (35mm equiv) at a night time sporting event with stable and sharp images.

I’m just saying….

Jabs

@DrSCSI – love your name (lol)

Great points and technical details. Now, let’s see what Nikon cooks up and THEN delivers after all these speculations.

hexx

how about mirrorless systems based on APS-C and SLRs with full frame sensor?

that would be nice, but unrealistic since low end and mid range dSLRs wouldn’t exist.

I’d like to see how new NEX-7 will perform. I’m about to get a Finepix X100 but that sony looks very interesting.

and at some point in the future will get d700 or its replacement

SZRimaging

On the fence on this one. If they price as high as the Q, i’m not buying it. But if the price it a bit lower than the E-PL3, we might talk. Be interesting to see size comparisons of the bodies, especially compared to the G12 and LX5. I currently shoot an LX3 for my walk around camera, and if this is only slightly bigger but with that much bigger of a sensor, I could go for it.

Worminator

As an LX-3 owner, you are definitely Nikon’s target market for this camera: something better, more versatile, yet only slightly bigger. It will come down to the size, variety, and price of the lenses as well as the body price itself.

It’s all going to cost more than a D3100 double kit, certainly Yet similar pricing has not hampered the popularity of mFT…

John

Exactly what I’m thinking as well. If the system performs (sensor and lens image quality) then folks like me with a LX-3 and a D700 (and D300) will buy into the system even if it’s more expensive than a D3100/D5100, etc.

If it’s P&S quality, then no way no matter what the price.

http://www.flickr.com/eparks Eric

Yep, I think this is exactly what Nikon wants; a compact travel/street camera to compliment their DSLR’s; and not a replace for them.

We also have to also think about the future when it comes to small sensors like this. The IQ may not be up to a D7000 level currently, but in a few years time we may very well have 2.6x crop sensors with very clean ISO3200; and if you’re not all that concerned with shallow DOF then why carry around a DSLR? Sensor size dictates DOF abilities, so this may never be a system for people that crave shallow DOF (especially in wide angles, portrait lenses and telephotos will be fine), but I fully suspect it will completely do away with camera’s like the LX-5 and Olympus XZ1. I also suspect for a good number of people (I’m thinking about D40-buying soccer moms) a small mirrorless camera is all they’ll ever need.

The only problem is Nikon now has to figure out some way to market smaller is better against m4/3’s. m4/3’s cameras and even their lenses aren’t exactly large after all.

tub33

I’m actually excited about the sensor size as I think M4/3 bodies and lenses still require a separate bag to carry them around.

I’m still wondering if Nikon is targetting the mindless consumer or the advanced photographer. I want real knobs and buttons, lower MP count for higher ISO quality, and a bunch of small prime lenses, not slow f3.5-5.6 consumer zooms.

Instead companies like Panasonic take away all the physical buttons (GF1->2->3, Sony makes huge lenses for NEX. No thanks.

it doesnt.
look how small were old nikkors. and optically perfect for full frame.
why today DX lenses need to be as big as those times FX lenses?
Here is your answer:
they want to make more moneys. so they can stick whole system where sun not shines.

Jimusan

It would also be nice if it had RAW

LGO

RAW is a given.

Good video support is an important. At the minimum 1080p 24, 30, 50 and 60 AVCHD at 28M-bit will be required as this will be a standard feature in all its upcoming competitors, e.g., Sony’s NEX7.

Worminator

I think it’s safe to bet that Nikon will play it safe and aim to please both “auto” and “manual” groups. With easy modes, zoom lenses, manual modes, and prime lenses. It will not be a traditionalist, no frills machine but with luck it should be able to be used as such without major inconvenience.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drscsi Dr SCSI

@ Worminator,
+1
I would even be willing to bet that Nikon developed a F mount adapter to the EVIL mount (to include the electronics). This will allow both DX and FX lens owners to use their existing glass as well, not to mention third party optics! Mount the 200mm f/2 VR II to the adapter and then the EVIL camera and what do you get? A 520mm f/2 super telephoto with more DoF!

broxibear

Hi tub33,
I think what Panasonic has done is pretty smart, they’ve realised that there are different types of users for their m4/3 camera. The ordinary user will go for the GF3 and they’re rumoured to be coming out with a GF Pro for enthusiasts/professionals who want all the controls to hand.
You’ve got Sony who have gone for a certain individual design, Olympus pretty retro, Pentax very retro and Panasonic somewhere in between. Nikon have been very conservative with their recent designs, their dslr range hasn’t changed much from the D1, and their compacts are difficult to tell apart.
If they want to make a dent in this market ( NEX3, GF3, E-PL3) it has to be desirable from a design point of view.

LGO

Nikon got the D1 design right from the very start and this indeed has not changed much since. This hopefully means that Nikon will also get the design of its mirrorless camera correct from start.

Metten

Nikon has a real evolutionary approach to design concerning (d)SLR’s. The current design language predates even the D1 and goes back to cameras like the F5 and F100. The D1 was pretty much a digital F5.

LGO

True to a large extent but note that certain functions not available in the F5 such as ISO, WB, file size and format adjustments – had to be incorporated and integrated in the D1.

Nikon’s vast experience in designing camera will undoubtedly again be brought to bear in the design of the mirrorless camera and based on its track record, I am fairly confident that Nikon will once again do a good job here.

broxibear

Hi LGO,
No one’s denying Nikon’s design experience or technical know how. I’m questioning their ability to produce an aesthetically interesting camera for this particular market. How it looks is very important if you’re going to compete against the Sony, Panasonic and Olympus cameras.
To enthusiasts and professionals the look is less of an issue, but if you’re trying to convince people to buy a Nikon instead of a NEX3 or E-PL3 it better have something aesthetically or it won’t sell.

LGO

Agree. Hopefully, Nikon has had help from some design studio company as they had with their other dSLRs (and not the designers of their Coolpix).

sflxn

I’m pessimistic about this mirrorless camera, but I’ll reserve final judgement till we see the system and image quality. This camera has the smell of fear all over it. Fear over the other mirror less format and fear of cannabilizing their DSLR. Although a Nikon DSLR users, I’m betting the Canon mirror less won’t have the smell of fear. It’ll probably have the smell of bold confidence and will take the market by storm. Nikon’s product will probably sheepishly tip toe into the market. I’m beginning to think Nikon product development are a bunch of cowards.

sflxn

Just to clarify. Nikon’s fear made it chose the microscopic sensor in this system.

Worminator

It is three times bigger than any advanced compact on the market today.

Keeping a mid size sensor gives Nikon ability to make small, cheap or small, exotic lenses that are simply not practical for mFT or larger formats.

No fear involved. It was a cold calculation: we already do APS-C, there is no other competing system in that sensor size, there is a significant gap between LX-5 and mFT systems in terms of size and versatility…

Sensor size is a tradeoff. Sony’s NEX was well-played: they get a lot of mindshare for having the “biggest sensor in the smallest box” … but the fact is the lenses are ridiculously huge, or slow, or simply unavailable without a adapter.

Sony E series has a grand total of FOUR native lenses: 16/2.8, 30/3.5 macro, 18-200 and 18-55 slow zooms. All except the 16/2.8 are large. Any a-mount lens with the adapter will be a considerable bulk.

these teeny system cameras may strike unique balances between image quality and size, but how much are we willing to compromise in sensor size/IQ/handling/DR/DOF/price-performance-ratio just in the name of saving some grams/millimeters of weight/space? i would also note that there are generally no cost advantages to these compact MILCs either (compared to much-larger-sensored compact DSLRs).

Worminator

This is not about price, but where people decide they want to drop their money on the image quality – – size slider. I’m not convinced the Pentax Q is in the right position. This Nikon system however seems better placed.

jimmy bottoms

it’s always about price. this isn’t a 2-dimensional IQ-vs-size comparison, rather a 3-dimensional IQ-vs-size-vs-price comparison. especially when such a rig is going to run the average man probably near $1000 (as the other MILCs do).

PHB

All the parameters you cite are determined by the size of the lens, not the size of the sensor.

Looks to me as if the mount is designed to allow a pretty large lens to be supported. So swap your 85 f/1.4 for a 20 f/0.7.

Rob

Are you sure it was fear or was it a calculated move to produce a sensor in a size that no other camera maker is using or producing and then building a camera around it? That sensor size is dead center between that of a high-end compact and the M43 sensor.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drscsi Dr SCSI

@ Rob,
It was a calculated move, because Nikon will sell an F mount to EVIL mount adapter with the electronics for focus and aperature actuation; this will result in more interchangeable lenses available on its product launch date, than any other system previously released.
Nikon, Tamron, Carl Zeiss, Sigma, and numerous other companies make F mount lenses. All of the previous Nikon presidents have realized and even stated such, that the F mount is key to their longevity. If Nikon should ever go to medium format, it is only then that will we see a non-compatible mount.

BornOptimist

If you are afraid of something, then you want to minimise your risk. By creating a new mount, a totally new serie of lenses, and creating a new sized sensor doesn’t smell fear for me.
The “safe”, “low cost” and me-too route would have been joining the m43 camp. Then they would have an arsenal of lenses ready. Or they could have used an existing sensor, and designed a system around that (the Pentax and Sony route), but no, Nikon take the really expensive route by creating everything from scratch.
They have invested a LOT of money in this system so they are serious about finding their own marked. The oldest patents for this system is from 2005/2006 if my memory is correct, so it’s been in work now for 5-6 years.

ChrisC

That sensor size does sit in a little gap of sensor sizes and more or less follows further 1.5 crop from DX (and also approximately 1.5 up from the typical compact). For a product driven by marketing executives rather than enthusiasts or engineers, it is positioned nicely.

iamlucky13

I’m also increasingly wondering if Nikon might be planning to sell this sensor not only in an ultra-compact interchangeable lens mirrorless body, but also a large point-and-shoot – meaning the next model might finally give the P-series something to brag about over the Canon G-series.

John

+1 I hope they do sell a fixed zoom lens version of it as I’d likely buy both.

LGO

Something like the fixed zoom lens of the Olympus XZ-1 and a 10mp sensor performing like the D700 would be just the ticket for me.

Monkey Nigh Mow

I assume you mean noise wise, because the DOF and details will be worse even at iso 100.

LGO

DOF, or rather more accurately, a surfeit of this is a standard feature in smaller sensor cameras. Even the larger m4/3 sensor struggles with this specially since there are very few “fast lenses” available in native m4/3 format. Even an f/.95 m4/3 lens struggles to produce the same bokeh that an FX body with a f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens can produce.

Note though that several camera manufacturers have been testing quite successfully with adding bokeh to small-sensor cameras. I expect that this will eventually be added as a feature to future camera models.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/drscsi Dr SCSI

+10 LGO,
I just bought the Olympus ZX-1 as a travel camera and I must say that the optics are outstanding! It is a great low light concert camera, with the ease of use my wife demands, while giving me the control that I demand. With that said, the sensor is far from ideal. It loses too much at the higher ISOs, forget anything above 800. If they could match the success of the ZX-1 optics with a Nikon EVIL sensor that has D7000 like performance, I might have to consider selling off all my pro gear! LOL

tub33

I was wondering how NIkon would get a low enough price on this custom brand new 2.7X crop sensor. Reusing it in other fixed lens compacts would be a great idea. A compact with the “standard” 28-100 equiv zoom would sell well to the coolpix crowd. Make another with a 35 equiv f2 lens and you’ll get some advanced shooters that don’t want the interchangeable lenses.

iamlucky13

They can get decent prices if some other camera uses sensors with similar size pixels. There’s tooling and design costs associated with different sized chips, but the big costs come in when you want different size circuits.

I’m not sure at the moment what other cameras might use the same size sensors. However, the rumored 24 MP D400 sensor would scale down to about 8 MP at 2.6X. Consumers might not like the idea of an 8 MP camera, but it’s a perfectly adequate resolution for most purposes, especially at the smaller sensor sizes.

Or perhaps Nikon is simply planning on selling enough mirrorless bodies to ultimately justify the cost. Considering that Sigma is making a go at Foveon sensors on their own, I think Nikon can easily make their sensors with a unique pixel pitch.

PHB

No, you are completely wrong there.

The costs come in cutting the masks. You can’t take a DX mask and chop it in half. Not even close.

What you can do, and is done very often is a ‘die shrink’ where an existing design for an X nm process is scaled down to make a design for an 0.7X nm process or whatever. This is the Intel tick/tock model. Each new design is first released on the old process (tock) and then shrunk when the new process becomes available (tick).

One is fixed in size while the other varies by the process used as in 90nm to 45nm to 32nm to 28nm or 22nm.

HAS nothing to do with the Intel ‘TICK-TOCK’ strategy which is one wherein they (Intel) first make a reduction in nm process and then after successfully completing that transition, they release a NEW architecture based upon this new nm lithography process!
nm= nanometer

All over the Internet people make this wrong assumption and thus one needs to learn what a camera sensor really is = it is NOT a cpu, a gpu nor an apu.

It is simply a light gathering DEVICE that is connected to other associated components to make a camera system and within THAT system, you have CPU’s or varying bit structures. Simply as that!

CPU’s do internal processing while camera sensors do EXTERNAL collection of light and then amplify it internally and sometimes convert it, depending on the design. Thus nothing really in common.

http://eleventhphotograph.com elph

The only problem I have with the estimation of the 17.3mm is the fact that the sensor is further back then the mount, that would technically make it bigger if were up front in line. Not sure the if the person made that calculation or not.

Also, what are the benefits of these mirror-less cameras? I’m curious to know on what we know so far what would make them better then mirrored cameras.

SZRimaging

Traditionally mirrorless cameras have better image quality, particular at slower shutter speeds because they lack a mirror. The other advantage, once again because of the lack of a mirror is that they have a much shallower lens to sensor depth, allowing for slimmer camera designs and smaller lenses. Add to that an overall weight savings, and you should get the idea.

Rob

Add to that no worries about front/rear focusing due to the lack of a mirror.

Anna Seed

I think they may have pulled off a blinder here choosing this size sensor if they can get it right. A built in evf is a must for me. The small size and a good sensor would compliment my DX and FX kit. Hope there will be an f mount adaptor too.

Doh700

the D700 has been out of stock at all major US retailers for the past two months. I know because I’ve been shopping for a new D700 during this time with no luck. I eventually pulled the trigger on a used D700 (50k shutter count) two weeks ago when all signs were pointing to a D4/D400 release. dOh!

Doh700

oops. meant to reply to previous NR post

Manolito

And now come the dozens of angry commentators that think that every company must only release products that meet their own personal desires or that make them feel better over fanboys from other companies. Get over it! You don’t represent 100% of the market! Companies must release products for different market segments… and you belong to one of the smallest segments!

Go Nikon, I don’t care about this new system -I’m waiting for the D800-, but it’s great to see you doing new things. Thanks FSM these whiners don’t run these companies, they would all be bankrupted long ago.

MK

i only shoot with the finest Japanese full frames, if i’m not friends with people who use anything smaller. smaller sensors are so beneath me that i want to go on the internet and complain anonymously, so HEAR ME SQUEAK. i want a full frame mirrorless and i want a unicorn and if you dont give it to me then well maybe i will go listen to linkin park after i slam my door!

andy

It depends if the lenses are fast enough to compensate for the small sensor.

If they happen to also produce a compact 50mm equiv f1.0 prime with really good image quality then I might be interested.

Ben Hipple

in the 1″ size there are some interesting lenses already, we just need to hope some one can make an adapter. Or Nikon makes the lenses you want in this size.

weird. That fisheye description says its only good for up to 5mpx? Interesting lenses though. I’m sure the new mirrorless will have video and with a lens like that you would be set for action sports

Jabs

@Ben Hipple

A great find as the C-mount has been around for a while and widely used. What made you think of this?

http://craigshipp.com Craig Shipp

No interest in a sensor that small. Come on Nikon rock the world with a full-frame mirror-less design.

bjrichus

+1,000,000

The invisible man

+1,000,000
I also agree with the lizard.

Mock Kenwell

My guess us that once you saw the price tag of that little wish, none of you whiners would buy it. This is a smart decision—it will just all come down to the execution.

EvanK

What I’m hoping for here is an alternative to the other mirrorless systems, but with a smaller “pocket friendly” design (and something that you can literally slide into your pocket with no bulk, some pancake primes would be ideal for that I guess), and also a lower price. If Nikon can get that nailed and also market their product well enough, I’m sure that it would have potential to do well.

Jabs

@EvanK

EXACTLY!

Best post here and realistic too.

Jabs

Actually, I think that this is a brilliant idea BUT will it sell?

a. Most Camera manufacturers are jumping on a bandwagon and trying to give us what THEY want or see profitable for themselves – FINE.

b. There is NOT one real camera system out there that is SMALL and affordable or even practical – so you might as well use a DSLR and QUIT whining about the weight – get a life and some muscles, as I have shot with three bodies with MD’s and big lenses slung around my neck and did not complain. People are too accustomed to complaining and wanting useless micro-devices like we all have miniature fingers or that you can cram lots of controls into a small space.

c. We need a really TRUE small camera system that DOES not try and be a DSLR or some mini-useless-compromised camera without ANY lens depth (variety of lenses or focal length variety) or quantity. NOT one on the market so far, as everything to me is useless – might as well use your camera phone as this is what people actually are using and with great results for their intended use – convenient and quick uploads plus sharing.

d. All people have dreams but your own dreams often do NOT translate well into a product that ANY manufacturer would rightfully sell, consider or really make any money for them, hence pipe dreams or YOUR wishes devoid of reality, often.

e. Let us see how this develops at least before fussing at it, as I see a great need for it – a compact system like a mini-Me (lol) system instead of one trying to cram the exact same DSLR system into some small unusable package or one dwarfed by a lens three times its’ size.

f. TIME for fresh thinking and not standardized nonsense, but REAL innovation like Nikon often does. Most laughed at Nikon when they stuck with 12 megapxels and ran with lowlight and high ISO response and now look at the results!
Have you looked at the files from a D3s versus any other DSLR?

Do you see the results of the D7000 and how close in response it is to an old D3/D700? Maybe this new sensor is something new and targeted at a market or user different from you, as in a miniature marvel that shoots well, costs less and does not compete with the other Nikon offerings but simply steps you up from basic CoolPix to Advanced CoolPix (this camera), then basic DSLR (D3100 – D5100) to advanced amateur/semiPro (D7000), to Pro DX as in upcoming D400 or whatever they name it, to semi-Pro FX (like the proposed or rumored D9000) to cheaper Video/Still body (rumored D800) to outright scarily good Pro FX bodies like D4 and D4X.

Nikon knows what they are doing and though most talk bad about CoolPix cameras here, I actually make a living using them and NO ONE has complained so far. Maybe YOU need to learn photography, Post Processing and Business yourself or maybe you are just an equipment buyer and hobbyist? That’s fine, but realistic expectations might help us all here while we dream about our ideal camera and then know that it perhaps lives only in our own head – lol

Sky

Seems like you need PENTAX Q!

See – Nikon won’t bring anything fresh to the market with it’s small-sensor camera. Such thing already exists. Whatever in form of Pentax Q or Ricoh GXR system (which is said to bring m4/3 sensor-module with ILC).

Jabs

@Sky

What they seem to be bringing is a systematic way or approach to that genre of cameras like they do for both FX and DX, so maybe this is the long rumored MX format or a micro-X format.

@Jabs, +1
Nikon probably looked at seperation in sensor sizes and the costs to build an EVIL system (MX) vs. the potential for profit in a non-competitive segment. To me, the biggest turn-off for the M4/3 system was the substantial entry costs for poorer optics and a weight not significantly lighter than a small DSLR. I didn’t get the fan craze. Now bring MX to the table, with support for an F mount lens, and support of the Nikon CLS, and other accessories, in a smaller lighter form factor, and you end up with something that definitely intrigues me. Having owned the D3, and then stepping down to the D700, I must say I am enjoying the performance and packaging of the D700. Although I miss the higher shutter speeds, and ergonomics on the D3. Photography is ALL about compromises!!! You trade resolution for ISO, ISO for shutter speed, aperature for shutter speed, size for weight, ISO for Noise, Flash for Ambient, focal length for aperature, etc, etc, etc…
The EVIL system is just another option brought to the bargaining table as you do your bidding to achieve the images you want.

Jabs

@DrSCSI

It is interesting to hear your points and experiences too. I personally think that Nikon is doing what is really needed as standardizing cameras is wrong as in making a ‘cartel’ to control things and thus innovation is eventually lost. I find micro 4/3rds to be too full of compromises and thus good at nothing in particular.

NOT small enough
NOT convenient enough
NOT priced low enough
NOT really a system as no lenses, no flash, no real macro lenses like Micro-Nikkors, no real wide angles, no real telephotos of any quality

It reminds me of something from the past, when companies got together and made the infamous Leica cameras or derivatives and then we got limited usability but standardized lenses, as in cross platform or manufacturer interoperability in lenses. I HAD a Leica, a rare one too plus a rare Canon lens (50mm) that I bought cheap. I tried to use the thing and gave up after I tried to load film into it (the body)- ever try loading 35mm film into an old bottom loading Leica – THEN, you will see why people converted to the competing Nikon F series.

I basically gave away the camera and lens to my own brother, the Leica aficionado and Leica user, as I hated it and it took lousy pictures compared to ANY of my F3’s including color slides and B+W film from Kodachrome Pro to Velvia 50D, Fuji 64T, Kodak Tech Pan, Ilford Delta, Agfa 25 to Fuji Neopan 100-1600 and various T-Max plus the amazing 25 ISO Kodak print film (forgot name) – as I know how to use filters properly.

Micro four thirds reminds me of that mess. Basically a digital Leica and we need a digital F and not some digital rangefinder with limited lens choice and availability.

I also prefer a larger camera as it has a pendulum effect to me and that stabilizes the whole setup and causes LESS mirror/body shake to me – hence I always shoot with an MD and then hated the F4 without an MD, so I bought the optional MD, (before the F4s was released as a package containing the maybe MB-23 drive, if I remember right) to give the body some heft. Ever used an old and sweet Nikon 50-300 F4.5 ED zoom? This monster had 95mm filters and was great for shooting as the zoom range was so great plus it had a great tripod mount. I put that on an N2000 and also an N4000 plus even an N2020 (AF body) and N4004 (AF body) and boy, did I learn a lesson then. NO MORE small and ‘dinky’ cameras for me.

THAT is what is wrong also with all the small bodies – useless with any real long lenses, as the lens is now the center of the experience and the camera does not count. I also find it much harder to hold ANY smaller body steadily, as it is too small for my hands and now you have to use some LCD or LED monitor to now frame this mess – especially bad in bright sunlight when you are taking shots with your back to the sun. Camera now thinks for YOU and not the opposite, so we have camera shots now instead of photography.

LOL!

http://www.createdbylove.com/ Lewis

e. Let us see how this develops at least before fussing at it, as I see a great need for it – a compact system like a mini-Me (lol) system instead of one trying to cram the exact same DSLR system into some small unusable package or one dwarfed by a lens three times its’ size.

Every time someone mentions that they wish it came with the F-mount and a DX sensor I picture this little plastic square attached to a 70-200.

Jabs

@Lewis

OR the outrageously large lens attached to an iPhone like device.

You look like one buried behind a cannon and using a remote location to shoot as you can’t see because the 600mm F4.0 now becomes a 1200mm F4.0 and you can’t hold it steady anymore, so you put it on a massive tripod and then you can’t find the body or the controls because they are buried there some place behind this massive lens = LOL! You now climb on a ladder (don’t ask where that came from???) and things get even more complicated, er – SherLOOK (lol).

Talk about going to extremes to make a point and then when you try photographing with this combo in a mountain, you fall off a cliff because you did not realize you were so close to the edge as the large lens on a dinky body gave you tunnel vision and you died playing with the touch controls and this huge lens blocking your view – so SAD!

Anand

STOP with the MIRRORLESS CRAP!

Seriously???? Just get on with the D4/D400/D800 already. All this “EVIL” cameras are stupid. Who the hell wants to carry those plus lenses on the side…and imagine putting a 70-200 on those tiny cameras??? Come on…be realistic….Mirrorless DSLR…now that’s different. But small Evils??? Yikes!

http://aussiescan.com Jeff

Mirrorless DSLR?

Hamuga

I think Nikon should make a mirrorless DSLR!
I bet it would be the first to market with something like that…

The invisible man

DSLR=Digital Single Lens “Reflex”
Do without mirror (reflex) it become a DSL

Mock Kenwell

It was sarcasm.

Jabs

@Anand
Perhaps you misstated and can tell us here what you meant.

DSLR =
D – digital
S – single (as there was once TL or twin lens cameras – one lens for taking the picture and the other for viewing the scene) as in one lens used for both viewing and taking a shot
L – lens
R – reflex as in the image coming through the lens is reflected to the pentaprism (top housing) so you take the picture and view the scene at the same time through one lens

A mirrorless camera refers to no mirror or mirror box – it technically can be a SL or SLR or a single lens for viewing and EVF’s (electronic viewfinders) instead of pentaprisms to look through or frame your shot depending on whether they reflected light to get the signal to the EVF or they have a separate sensor to do this. Actually some cameras have FIXED semi-transparent mirrors that do not move while others have movable mirrors that have small semi-transparent AREAS that the camera meters through, like a Nikon F3.

Now, what did you mean? Were you speaking about small DSLR cameras the size of the current mirrorless cameras?

Anand

Well, since it “technically can be “SLR” according to you…why can’t it be Mirrorless DSLR again???? Going by your acronyms…adding the only “D” makes its digital…which most of the new cameras are….aren’t they?

To put it simply…a Mirrorless camera, the size and shape of a, say D300s. Rather than the tiny ass ones they are trying to come out with!

Jabs

@Anand

Sony now makes several bodies with fixed or pellicle mirrors that DO NOT move and they probably meter as well as view through these semi-transparent mirrors like they did in the past with Canon’s F series and a special version of the F3 and maybe also F4.

The problem is that in the past, it was mainly used for speed in framing (fps) above 8fps then, and because of a lack of mirror black out, you could still see the subject while shooting due to no mirror movement or the brief blackout when the camera pulls up the mirror to shoot finally exposing an image to either the sensor (digital) or the film (analog). Being able to still see the subject while filming was supposedly an asset to quick reaction or quick shooting of fast unveiling action, but who knows?

In the film days, I hated those bodies, as the mirror darkened the viewfinder image and were easily scratched plus 8fps was always fast enough for me personally. In the current Sony DSLR bodies, they have sensor overheating problems with their pellicle mirror cameras but they have an advantage in video or live view shooting plus they can easier employ EVF’s (Electronic viewfinders) which I hate for still cameras, but are fine on a video/cinema only camera.

So far, I don’t like it, but you never know what technology develops to cure these ills.

The D300s that you describe is already made by Sony and that is what they made to counter the D7000 and so far the D7000 is better and outselling it.

ALREADY done, then! If you want say an NEX the size of a traditional DSLR, then Sony also has you covered there with their new A series, as they are playing both ends of that ‘game’ – small body with APS-C sensor and larger body with the same or a similar APS-C sensor.

Both are compromises to me and thus NOT interested.
NEX = no lenses, tiny body and you looking pretty or cute!
A-series Pellicle mirror bodies = a problem solved but still not a system behind it nor the performance I need, as they seem to siphon off some of the sensor’s light to get their benefit and thus compromised. If they had multiple sensors with each doing a specific job, then I think that would be superior, but more costly and since this is aimed at a certain price point, then they probably would not do that, as they already seem to be trying to flood the market with lower cost alternatives to Nikon’s like Canon often does. I prefer a multi-functional solution to problems often, rather than a jack of all trades monolithic solution that is all things to many but master of nothing in particular and thus it does nothing really well except of course, it gets the bragging rights – sort of like a Bimmer -vs- a Ferrari F40, Enzo or Tesstarossa. One looks pretty and eclectic, while the other is a real street legal race car (Ferrari). I prefer race cars and not those who pretend to be the ultimate anything = my perspective.

http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

I totally double that!

The invisible man

NEW NIKON LENSES !!!!!!!

Here is a leak, with his new mirrorless cameras, Nikon is introducing 2 new lenses:
a 11-17mm f/2.8 MXDSXTVH ED zoom and an other 22-34mm f/2.8 MXDSXTVH ED

And also a /3 divider 14 elements asphericals to use with the 11-17mm as a wide angle.

Ke

As much as compacts are improving, the S95 & similar aren’t that brilliant yet. If Nikon can manage to get something similar in size to a compact with a much larger sensor, but at a lower cost than the micro 4/3rd cameras, it’ll probably do very well.

There are plenty of times were taking a DSLR -even a small one like a D40- around is not practical.

I might even get one if they release a lens equivalent to 35/40mm FX. Even if it’s just for snapshots on holiday or of friends & family.

jeriko

I have suddenly lost all interest in Nikon Mirrorless.
Oh well

DFive

Hoping it delivers better image quality than the LEICA S2 !!!!!!

Sky

I’m sure for some people it will. Just because it has Nikon label it gonna have unbelievable low noise, good video and stunning design that was “right from the beginning”.

ROTFL fanboys.

Ronan

Watch this thing cost near $1000…

http://www.bythom.com Thom Hogan

US$599

LGO

So close to the entry-level Sony NEX and Olympus/Panasonic m4/3.

lolly

You may be right … the smaller sensor Pentax Q with kit lens is already $800 US

As all marketing people know you’ve got to deliver what the consumer wants at the right price … let’s see if Nikon can take the mirrorless (interchangeable-lens) market by storm

The invisible man

24x36mm is the way to go, no questions about that.
I had a D700 and D1, D1x, D200, D5000, D40, D60, D90
The FX format master DX in every ways.

Hamuga

This is sort of off topic, but something I have always wondered about.

How do you see if the light passes through you instead of being converted to info in your eyes?

I don’t mean to be rude, just curious.

The invisible man

That’s maybe the reason why I have so many seizures.

Hamuga

Oh, ok.
Sorry to bring up such a sore subject.
Carry on!

Jabs

@Hamuga
You look behind you with an electronic viewer and let it decipher the information that passed through you or if it is invisible, then you won’t know that it is there unless you can measure it, so don’t worry about it.

OK – I bit, now what is the answer and don’t tell me – IF a tree falls in the jungle or forest, will it make a sound or not WHEN you cannot hear it – duh!

LOL!

-OR- you ask a Bat – lol – after you brush up on your bat-linguistics!

Sonar overload – ears and eyes fried – HELP!!!

The invisible man is merely a figment of someone’s imagination or their Gaelic humor – lol – decipher that.

What did the wife of the invisible man say to him – it is so NICE to see you again – lol.

Guess when she said that!

iamnomad

A serious waste of time, energy and money.

portence flatulencia

three things have to happen for me to buy a 2.6x system camera instead of an entry-level dslr or a m4/3 cam:

With 95% confidence I can say:
1: Not gona happen,
2: Not gona happen,
3: Not gona happen.

1: Will be priced equal to m43
2: it will be at least 10, probably 12
3: The wide prime will be f2.8

Dexter0508

I think i wont buy such a thing not unless it looks like an old school camera with matching fast prime lens dedicated for the small format. looking at the photo, i think it’s a bit plastic-y for me. If its has the FM’s, F, and S2 feel to it, ill go for this line-up but if it turn-out looking like an Sony NEX, pls shoot me hahaha

@Dexter
That is a really nice concept camera even if fake – probably would be expensive and impractical though, as in prohibitively expensive and complex to manufacture.

http://Alamocityphoto.com Rich Gibson

Love it. Great size which can make for some very small lenses. I recall camera manufacturers getting great images out of a 2/3″ sensor (4x). So i thonk nikon has found a sweet spot. They can make systems smaller than m43, and still have fantastic image quality. Brilliant.

disiderio

You can say goodbye to any chance for nice shallow DOF. x100 trumps this, even if it is fixed lens.

Sky

Yep. It kills the purpose of EVIL as such – removes the major advantage of this system over compact cameras – the picture quality of DSLR. :/

So you are left with camera having disadvantages of compact and disadvantages of DSLR.

Dexter0508

+1 the X100 is not the perfect EVIL but for now its the best close to EVIL out there! how i wish nikon can do a better job than this

BornOptimist

X100 is not a EVIL cam.
I have one, and albeit a good camera, it’s not what I had hoped for. It gets less and less use.
The best part of it is the optical viewfinder, and the quality of jpg out of the camera.

disiderio

I other news, what is Nikon thinking? Mirrorless camera with a tiny sensor, no canon g12 or s95 competition, no 5d competition for yonks… Maybe they’re trying to differentiate themselves… out of the market.

MK

sorry but there is a >99.99% chance that nikon has done more research than little old you regarding implementing a smaller sensor camera system. regarding shallow dof, i hate when i take pictures of a group of people and only a few of them is in focus because the dof is too shallow. people arent going to be taking this camera on a safari or to weddings so relax. OR WILL THEY? good luck putting your full frame comfortably into your pocket (aka huge bag)

Nikon has been on a suicide march for over three years at this point — insisting that photographers’ needs don’t change and that photographers need the exact same capabilities they needed five years ago.

At this stage if Nikon decided that a new sensor smaller than M43 is a great idea — it’s certain they’ll be joining Miranda, Kowa, Petri, and Chinon in the not-too distant future.

disiderio

There is a reason why the x100 is selling like hotcakes. A decent size sensor is one of those reasons. Nikon got it wrong with their s95 competitor without raw output, they got it wrong letting the 5d dominate the videographer market, they got it wrong with capture nx2. And to be honest I believe they’ve got it wrong making an interchangeable lens camera with a sensor smaller than micro four thirds which, in principle could at it’s best be only a fraction smaller than a lx5. Seriously lagging at the consumer end. Cameras like the d7000 and a big expensive I am nikon campaign are keeping this company afloat. NOT significant technical progression or innovation. Poor effort.

BetaHal

Adapter for older nikon lenses or I won’t buy.

http://www.imagepro.dk Soeren Engelbrecht

The only real downside to a 2.6x sensor is that adapting your existing Nikkors doesn’t make much sense, unless you are interested in the “long tele” territory. And I am not at all.

So in my case, that means that Nikon will not have any particular advantage over other mirrorless systems – even though I own 16 Nikkors at the last count. An APS-C sensor would actually be more useful to me in that respect. I might end up getting one after all – but it’s not backwards Nikkor compatibility that will be the deciding factor – on the contrary.

ElPadre

i’m reserving judgement until i see test shots made with a reasonable prime lens for this system. if they’re great, nikon might strike gold. if they’re bad, it’s another advantix fiasco.

http://blog.dafyddowen.com Daf

Dear Admin – could you add the Fuji X100 ?
I’d be interested to see.

(Or am I being stupid and it’s one of the 1/1……. values ?)

Nat

X100 sensor is same size as DX

http://blog.dafyddowen.com Daf

Ah Ok, thanks.
Saw it was APS-C – but different manufacturers have different spec for this.

http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

Fuji X100 has a APS-C sensors which is present on the top comparison graph

Nat

lol I don’t think it will be pocketable and cheaper than m43 as some of you may think…

Mike Olioneez

I think this format has been chosen specifically to keep it pocketable and/or simple to carry.

Remember some of the patents had lenses with built in lens, auto lens caps – which is a very convenient feature, if say, the lens were designed just to be tossed into a general purpose, non-camera, bag.

I see two potentially successful lens categories.

1.) Very small primes. So much so that the camera with such a prime attached would be pocket friendly – coat pocket, not shirt pocket, but easier to pack away than any other ILC.

Hmmm – Nikon makes digital microscopes and some Cinema plus Video lenses too, as in ED Cinema and Video lenses – not sure if they still make them, but remember them from the past at their New York Rockyfeller Center Store – Nikon House.

Did someone or Nikon make this new sensor to ape or be compatible with the C-mount standards to expand its’ usability to other markets as well then?

WHAT then are the dimensions of the C-mount compared to this new sensor and mount?

Remember the fantastic Nikon ED Spotting scope with an F-mount adapter – could this all be a repeat of that via Nikon using some old patents plus updated ones in new uses/scenarios?

Will the ED Spotting scope to F-mount adapter then be the way to now use F-mount lenses on this new series of cameras and/or will they use the Nikon microscope to F-mount adapter?

WOW! – Nikon is smart – using their own vast resources of patents to bring a new or older standard forward to digital.

A post above in this thread got me thinking about this C-mount possible connection.

WHAT about a re-use of the mount from the AF Nikkor underwater camera system (Nikonos RS, I think was the name) from the past? Maybe that was why they let the patented name expire?

Hmmm – time to go back to work, lest I get lost in theories and guesses.

Hey Administrator – can you please follow up on this – thanks!

http://assuredphotos.com RRRoger

This camera is not for me.
I can not hold a pocket camera steady and even sent back a D3100 because
it was too light and too small for me.

techmine

My question would be: Can Nikon’s 1st gen mirror less cameras do better than generations of Panasonic,Olympus and Sony mirror less cameras? In what ways? and if not (as Nikon has been notoriously lacking punch in P&S market even after years of trying) then it would be just a case of enticing Nikon old timers, enthusiasts and fanboys to show off. My requirement would be – Exceptional image quality (likes of D90) with trimmed down feature list (to keep a gap). But the the sensor size will have a big drag on the IQ. IMHO Nikon will go after style and things like GPS or Bluetooth/wi-fi transfer. If you want better IQ – Go for any APS-C DSLR, they are all fanstastic.

Simon

Oh, when I saw the title the first time, I’ve read “Nikon’s mirrorless camera crap”…

Giorgos

What I really think this kind of systems (Q, Nikon mirrorless) is going to do is to “educate” the P&S crowd to the system mentality, i.e. having more than one lens, choosing the appropriate one for the occasion etc. All this, of course, hopefully (for the companies) done while yielding a nice profit. It will be easier for such users to jump to the DSLR section instead of the average P&S user that does not want and never got used to bothering with alternative lenses. There is always the psychological barrier of the P&S user that DSLRs are complicated etc. which such a system will help overcome. I think it is addressed to those on the fence between the next high-end P&S and MFTs or DSLRs and it is expected to make the transition P&S->Nikon mirrorless->DSLR for such users thus circumventing the MFTs (to Nikon’s benefit).

NRTARD

I have been thinking about this and if they put a lens on it and market it as a P&S it might do well. if they make a bunch of lenses for it and market it to people who shoot DSLRs then it will fail. It will likely fail either way.

John

Hardly.
I have a D700, D300 and an LX-3. I really want something in the LX-3 size range with significantly better IQ and interchangeable lenses. This camera would never replace any of my DSLRs, but rather complement them in a very nice way if Nikon does this right.

I’d also be interested in a fixed zoom version if it was fast enough and started at 24mm FF equivalent and the lens was able to collapse down decently.

NRTARD

Because there is too much competition in this area already. And the x100 will likely sell more. if the price of the x100 comes down I expect to see nikon pull this project.

BornOptimist

Ohh, the photographic world are not spinning around the X100.
It lacks on several areas, but as a fixed 35mm it’s quite good (but absolutely horrible manual focus system), and the jps out of the camera is the best I have experienced.
Since X100 is a fixed lens camera it is not a serious competitor to any interchangeable camera.

John

+1 Very true. I don’t see the X100 competing in the same area as this Nikon offering.

Jabs

@NRTARD
OR make a competitor to the X100 – lol

Does your name mean – Nikon RETARD or Nikon is retarded?

Had to ask – lol

Kostas

Very interesting in a small system, pocket friendly but with good image quality.

I now have a Nikon D7000 and a Fuji F200EXR, I brought an Olympus pen to replace my compact Fuji, but I end up not to use it so much and sell it because the size was bigger than I thought in the beginning .

What i am saying is that , for snap shots of my drunk friends i use the Fuji, For “serious” photos I use the Nikon, so for me there was no room for the Olympus m43

If this new camera is really small with much better image quality than a premium compact, i will be very interested in replacing my good compact camera with something better but not much bigger in size

Sorry for my terrible English

Ke

Absolutely agree. If this sits somewhere between the better compacts & the m4/3s then I’m very interested.

That sensor really isn’t that small – Canon’s G series cameras have much smaller sensors than that & those have pretty good IQ – especially if it’s just for snapshots or personal stuff.

Tony

I hope Nikon is not too stupid to not having an adapter for F mount lenses at the time of its release.

carlgo

Nothing wrong with a small, quality camera and a few jewel-like quality lenses. Especially if it had manual control options. It would be swell.

Nikon could come out with a DX version later, then an FX, then even MF if they wished. Leica did…

People forget that Japanese companies are very, very conservative and it takes 73 meetings and four years to change the strap clasp…But, once the avalanche starts all the companies have prototype, lens designs, etc. ready to go and they will pile on.

And we have to be approaching the point where big sensors are going to be cheap. Some famous photo person, I forget who, recently wrote that FX costs so much because the companies want it to for marketing purposes. In time some company is going to break out a pretty cheap FX camera and then all hell will break loose and who knows from there.

carlgo

Oh, and to continue…it would be crazy for Fuji not to have follow-on models ready to go. It would also seem that any of the more marginal companies, who will never be able to compete with the giants selling P&S and DSLRs, might think EVIL is the only way to stay in the game and come in with some compelling designs. And independent lens makers would also welcome this. We could be deluged with some interesting and very capable designs offering sensors as big as you want, with affordability less off a factor.

Ke

Fuji have got more cameras in store to follow up on the X100. They’ve spoken about them (albeit briefly).

canapé

42mm diameter for the mount? once upon a time, that was enough for a 24 x 36 “sensor”…

jake337

As long as they make an adapter for FF lens I’ll pick one up for my wife. Throw a 124 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 50m f1.2 ai, 85 f1.4, 135 f2 dc on that bytch and have fun!

Monkey Nigh Mow

Are you talking about your wife or the camera?! Lol

Alan

Over 3 different centuries camera makers have come up with “smaller but good enough” equipment (extend that time frame if you count the portable camera obscura). Nikon are just taking another step along that established route – but one that could have major influence, I believe.

The Olympus 43 system failed for a number of reasons; it didn’t give much reduction in effective size from DX format. Even though micro43 has reduced overall size further, the overall balance is not very different to DX. A Panasonic G3 with standard zoom lens may be smaller and lighter than the equivalent Nikon D3100, but it’s not by a significant amount – they are both “strap over the shoulder” or “carry it in a bag” models used in an identical way. Even smaller bodies like the GF3 are not particularly stowable when the standard zoom is attached, and need a pancake lens to be compared to compact cameras. DX and 43 lenses haven’t turned out to be much smaller than FF lenses. Micro 43 only takes another 20mm off the length.

Perhaps Nikon with a 2.6/2.7 crop have found a better balance between size, portability, and quality. While some of us wanted something like a NEX with an F mount adapter giving AF with AF-S lenses, some unrealistically craved FF, Nikon are clearly moving in a different direction. They have no doubt considered threats to their P&S market from mobiles, upgrade paths, high end compacts, calls for pocketable cameras, and many other aspects. While they have built their considerable reputation on pro and enthusiast markets, they also have a considerable presence in the P&S compact market – is there no space in between?

Will the format be good enough? There is a trend towards “high end” compacts (G12, S95, LX5, XZ1, etc), many enthusiasts use these and are satisfied. Nikon’s mirrorless will use a much bigger sensor producing better results.

Despite “pro” rumors this is not aimed at pros (even if it should be named Coolpix Pro – hopefully not, what an oxymoron), but I’m sure some pros will use it. Imagine if it has an F mount AF adapter. OK, a lot of lenses wouldn’t be much use, but 35 or 50/1.8 would become attractive fast short telephotos, and I imagine every owner of the 200/2 and 300/2.8 would buy one just to try out the experience of such fast super telephotos.

Success may depend on how small the lenses are, as well as IQ, but I think Nikon could have zoned in on a new successful market niche. Ultimately the market will decide, not forum posters. It may be the sensor also has applications for fixed lens “super compacts” and could perhaps lead to Nikon finally coming up with that fabled Gx killer.

Stepper

I am suddenly becoming interested in a Ricoh GXR with “F” mount.

Cuckoo

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

WAY TOO SMALL! THAT SENSOR IS WAY TOO SMALL!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

WHY? Why did it have to be so small?

Jabs

OFF topic but perhaps related?

Did anyone see the new announcement of this Ricoh M-mount module for their interchangeable sensor/lens system? You can now use your old Leica and other similar lenses on a newer digital camera – wow, OK – lol

Time to corner the market for old M-mount lenses on E-Bay, eh – invisible man?